221–230 of 649 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The risks are really only economic. And those can be solved with trade pacts... without having to sacrifice any other independence such as with laws, courts, and borders. I'm from Canada and our economy (and defence) depends heavily on the US, we both strongly benefit from an economic relationship. It's mutually beneficial, as all pacts should be. Yet we don't have to worry about policy being dictated out of NAFTA or…
The risks are most certainly not only economic. The EU influences almost every aspect of the UK in one way or another. Immigration and travel are both affected. The ability to travel and work in any country in the EU is a massive benefit which will likely be much more difficult. Visiting family in friends outside of the UK could become much more difficult. Our laws are affected - there will be nothing to stop the UK…
I agree the EU was a lock on this but it's a bit more complex than just changing the legislation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know there has been intra-nation peace in western Europe since the end of WWII, but how do we know it was due to the EU? Both the peace and the EU would seem to as easily explained by the post war situation where European nations were now second tier economicly, and threatened by a big external nation. The reward for war was no longer there, and the need for cooperation was high.
> European nations were now second tier economicly, and threatened by a big external nation. Wasn't this also true for eg WW1? Even with the same actors
I don't think either one was true the case after after WW1.
Russia, though large, was not regarded as a serious military threat to Europe. When attacked by Russia, Poland (!) beat the snot out of Russia in the 1920's and gained half of the Ukraine and half of Belarus in the subsequent peace treaty.
An although a European nation was no longer the world largest economy, they were still regarded as the ones that mattered. The world at the time still revolved around Europe and the actions of European powers. To be premininet in Europe was to lead the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your argument is that the Economic body that was the EEC was supposed to help the UK fight a war half a world away because.....reasons?
I haven't said anything of the sort; I don't have enough knowledge of the period to comfortably comment on it. I only commented above to explain why, it seemed, you were disagreeing on whether the multi-European-country group existed before the Falklands conflict. Highlighting the Economic in EEC hardly seems relevant either, seeing as the EU is basically just MaastrichtTreaty(EEC) - a treaty which insofar I'm aware…
The EEC was very much just an economic body. Since then the EU has been taking steps in multiple areas beyond just it's initial economic competencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know there has been intra-nation peace in western Europe since the end of WWII, but how do we know it was due to the EU? Both the peace and the EU would seem to as easily explained by the post war situation where European nations were now second tier economicly, and threatened by a big external nation. The reward for war was no longer there, and the need for cooperation was high.
This has been the longest period of Peace in Western Europe in history by a massive margin. That's evidence. Non top tier countries used to fight all the time in Europe before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people of the UK. I had the feeling they were resting on the inherited wealth of their empire for rather long now. They always wanted special treatments in the EU. They even pay mad bucks on their royals for basically nothing. Maybe this Brexit will go down bad and they will change their ways and join the EU in 10-20 years as 'real' members. But I don't have many hopes in that. Probably they will end up like Swit…
>They even pay mad bucks on their royals for basically nothing. Royal family costs the UK £307m (highest number) with a revenue from them of £500m [1]. Seems like good business to keep paying for them. 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is...
The first being that the Royal family actually makes the UK money because they cost less to maintain than what is made up for in brand image and tourism benefits.
The second is that because they don't pay tax, it means their enterprises are not as efficient and the return on the crown lands is about half of what could be expected on a normal enterprise.
The source for both these viewpoints are videos on YouTube. The first is from CGPGrey (I think), while the second is a reply to that video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You haven't been affected by the changes because nothing has happened yet. This is the start of the negotiations to decide what those changes will be. And when I say nothing has happened yet, I mean apart from the massive drop in the value of sterling and inflation massively outstripping wage increases. I assume you're based in London, which means you're fairly isolated from the social changes that have happened acro…
Except "the experts" were predicting terrible things immediately, not later on - remember the punishment budget necessity? Inflation "massively outstripping wages" is just over the Bank of England's target, the one it has been massively under for the past 5 years. The drop in sterling doesn't lead to sustained inflationary pressure. Wages are also picking up as well, though not in the public sector. The "massive incr…
As a matter of fact, I do remember the "punishment budget", the one which was mocked up for 2019-20 [1], around the time that the UK would actually leave the EU.
No one expected the UK economy to crash the day of the referendum. The projections are all projections for AFTER we have left the EU, not before. The reason exports get that title is because they know enough to at least make their projections from when the changes actually happen.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/15/revolt-of-6...
Great news. Of the four happiest countries in the world, three are European countries outside the EU. Autonomy is crucial to happiness.
A great thing about autonomy is the ability to quickly solve national problems. Compare and contrast non-EU Iceland and EU Greece. Both came near to collapse due to financial crises. Iceland jailed the bankers and recovered. Greece is in the EU straight-jacket, the corrupt bankers became kings and the people will be in debt bondage for decades. Brexit is comparable to the Berlin Wall falling. Like the Soviet Union, t…
"Relatively small", because UBS was warning the Greece faced hyperinflation, military coup, civil war — and that was just from leaving the Euro and revaluing their currency in an orderly default where they didn't have to repay everything.
It's not just the EU that told Greece what to do, the IMF is part of the Trokia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Errr, no there was a clear majority vote for leaving the EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_...
Not of the total electorate almost 30% did not vote passing major constitutional changes on such a small majority is counter to all custom and practice - A local Allotment society would not pass a rule change like this.
What do you propose? Compulsory voting?
Many were genuinely undecided and made a conscious decision to abstain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not British but I live in the UK - I have based my entire life here, family, house, job, car, everything - and a year ago, I would have never considered leaving, this is my home. But right now, I'm weighting my options. I'm a huge believer in the European Union, so why would I want to live in a country that's not in it? And increasingly, I think the answer is - I wouldn't. So although I haven't started packing ye…
Getting a visa isn't so onerous is it? Compared with the hassle of upping your roots and moving your family?